Talk:Five Dimensional Project Management (Complexity Mapping for Transportation Projects)
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Blanked the page) |
|||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | == Peer review One - Different == | ||
+ | * Five Dimensions are explained well. | ||
+ | **Great :) | ||
+ | * Nice table of different things that fits in each category. | ||
+ | ** ✓ | ||
+ | * Would be nice if the listing of steps in the abstract was a list instead of just 'part of the text'. | ||
+ | **I see your point and i tried it at first but I don't think it looks better. | ||
+ | * "Used in early project planning" is not really clear - Does it mean that it was used back when Project planning was invented, or if it is the early stages of project planning. | ||
+ | **added stages | ||
+ | * The table of content seems a little extreme. Maybe it could be an idea to write the sub-sub headings with bold text, instead of a headline? | ||
+ | **Very good point, I saw that but didn't fix in time. Changed subsub to bold. | ||
+ | * The Concept of "Transportation project management" is explained. It might just be straight forward, but it could be nice to have a few sentences about it. | ||
+ | **added parenthesis to emphasize that this relates to construction projects and not any transportation project (e.g. public transport networks or utilizing the transport network). | ||
+ | * Under Traditional view it says: (usually a Department of Transportation) "Department of Transportation" if, as I understand it, is just a random department from the industry, it should not be in capital letters. | ||
+ | **I tried looking into this as I can't recall a strict rule but it is a national agency after all and nowhere did I ever encounter a 'DOT' written in small letters so it stays as is. | ||
+ | * Referencing "The Iron Triangle" without either a link or a reference. It is quite understandable, but it might be nice with a reference. | ||
+ | **ref added | ||
+ | * "One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project is one in which the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions." - Could be formulated a little clearer for example "One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions in order to live up to certain criteria." - or something like that? | ||
+ | **wording changed | ||
+ | * I do not really understand where you get this conclusion from: "Therefore a routine project can be complicated, technically, but not complex if the issues of context and financing have an insignificant magnitude. The aim of 5DPM is to allow for a better optimization of resources to ensure the success of a complex project." | ||
+ | **Complexity here is measured as the spread of difficulties not their depth. e.g. If you were to build a multilevel interchange on a barren 'no mans land' mountain range and had unlimited funds then the project would be complicated sure but it would not be complex. | ||
+ | * You are using the abbreviation PM both as Project Management, and Project Manager. I think you should stick to one of the two. | ||
+ | **That is intended as some things can be done both by the top person as well as the whole team. | ||
+ | *In the section of "Factors affecting complexity" it seems like you want to explain the factors driving complexity, but you are also giving tips on how to solve it; e.g. the list under "Project Estimates". Maybe change the title of the section, or move it to another section on how to manage the complexity? | ||
+ | **It's only the best standardized factors. Changed the section description and added references to the text. | ||
+ | * The list under "Schedule - Time" is not made with correct Wiki-syntax, but it should be easy to fix. | ||
+ | ** ✓ | ||
+ | * The Technical aspect seems a little short/rushed, compared to the other sections, but if you think you've depleted the knowledge, I can't see anything wrong with it. | ||
+ | **This is actually my chosen area of expertise and it's faaar from depleted but of course I tried to keep it as short as possible else it would become a separate article :) I see your point though so I elaborated slightly on the points. | ||
+ | * Under Local Issues it might be more readable if you make a few breaks in the text. for example before each point you are presenting. | ||
+ | **Perhaps but it's still done with a typical wiki list syntax | ||
+ | * It is not urgent, but the example you use to visualize the Financing part, could be used as a thorough example through the different sections, all relating to the same case. That would definitely help on the 'connecting thread' | ||
+ | ** discussed in review 2 | ||
+ | * Again, it is logical, but it would still be nice if you mentioned (with text!) that a low score is good, and a high score is bad. | ||
+ | **I agree but the scale is already described in the scoring table. | ||
+ | * References are not working, but I suppose you already know this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Feedback from ProjectGoat == | ||
+ | |||
+ | I hope the feedback makes sense, it should come in a pretty logical order, as it was written down as I read through the article :) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ;”Abstract text” | ||
+ | |||
+ | :*Good introduction | ||
+ | :*Write more about the relevance of your article for project management – the teachers want a summary stating the relevance of the subject/article | ||
+ | :*Consider making the list of 5 as an actual list. | ||
+ | :**considered :) | ||
+ | ; Introduction | ||
+ | |||
+ | :*Good, short intro text | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | ; Complexity | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* References to the CCPM and FWHA are missing I think | ||
+ | :**fixed | ||
+ | ;Traditional view | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* Very nice to write about this in order to give a perspective to the 5D | ||
+ | :* Reference to where the ''“Iron Triangle”'' figure comes from – could be the same ref as the one used in the tekst. | ||
+ | :**fixed | ||
+ | ; Five dimensional approach | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* Reference to the case study of 18 complex transportation projects could be moved to right after “a case study” to make it more clear – instead of only mentioning it after the conclusion to the study. | ||
+ | :**good point | ||
+ | :* re-write the sentence about the study’s conclusion to be more clear in what your want to say | ||
+ | :**done | ||
+ | :* I am unsure of how you get the conclusion to this paragraph, I cannot see the direct link to what has been mentioned in the paragraph and the conclusion | ||
+ | :**Again to me it seems very logical but since both reviewers mentioned this I added an example to visualize the conclusion. | ||
+ | ; Five Dimensions | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* Reference to where the figure is from + refer to the figure in your text. | ||
+ | :* When writing the last sentence ''“ The division of requirements…”'' you should refer to the table (maybe call it table 1) | ||
+ | :**It did say 'following structure' but i added the table title to clear any doubt. | ||
+ | ;Factors affecting complexity | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* Good introduction to the factors included in complexity | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* Remember to make references to where you have these definitions from, the ideal would be to have several references, which will enhance the credibility. | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* Maybe consider changing the introduction to reflect the fact that you are not only giving definitions, but you are also giving tips in your lists | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* I think you forgot to use ''"Stars"'' to make a bulleted list in the <u> Time </u> paragraph | ||
+ | :**fixed | ||
+ | :* minor detail: When writing e.g. it should be in italic I think :) | ||
+ | :**that's right, changed all e.g. and i.e. to italic | ||
+ | :* <u>The Technical paragraph </u> is not as well described as some of the others, so consider revising this part and adding additional information here. However, I of course don’t know whether or not there in fact is more to write about this subject. It may just also be the fact, that this part has more of sub-parts. | ||
+ | :**addressed in review 1 | ||
+ | :* Look into the possibility of maybe linking your <u> Stakeholder part </u> with some of the articles written about this – helps create a coherence with other aspects of project management. I think it can be done with the use of external linking :) | ||
+ | :**added categories to the article | ||
+ | :* In the <u>Financing a Future Revenue Stream</u>, it would make more sense to make the three issues as an actual numbered list. | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* I would suggest you trying to incorporate an example throughout the explanation of all the aspects | ||
+ | :** A project where all these aspect would have to be consciously managed at all times would redefine the word ''nightmare'' :) I believe the descriptions are enough in this case. | ||
+ | ; Radar Map | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* Maybe don’t call it ''(tool)'' like this. A suggestion could be calling it: ''"A tool – using a Radar Map"'' or ''"Radar map – a tool for clarity and comparison"'' | ||
+ | :**yes that's nicer, changed | ||
+ | :* Very nice explanations with the use of the radar complexity diagram | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* In relation to the comment about using an example to illustrate – this example could maybe also be coupled to this Radar Map tool, if possible. This would be ideal to create a great flow in the article. By giving explanations - almost telling a story through the explained factors and then finishing by tying it together with the practical tool. | ||
+ | :**I fully get your point but I think that a wiki article inherently should be somewhat generic. An example going through the whole article could actually make for a good case study. | ||
+ | :* Remember to mention that on the range from 0-100, which is the best and which is the worst in order to avoid confusion later on in the Radar Chart. | ||
+ | :**as said it is visible in the scoring table but i added this since both reviews commented on that | ||
+ | :* Do you have a reference to where you have found this tool? And where do you have the numbers from for the mapping of the different phases? | ||
+ | ** added references to the figures | ||
+ | ; General comments | ||
+ | |||
+ | :* It seems that the table of content is a bit “overwhelming” and you could consider removing some of the sub-headings. | ||
+ | :** ✓ | ||
+ | :* Are you using PM for both Project Manager and Management? This could create confusion… | ||
+ | :** again each occurrence can be made either by a single person or the team. | ||
+ | :* Avoid using ‘’it’s’’, ‘’don’t’’, etc…. | ||
+ | :* The reference list is made by writing <nowiki><references/></nowiki> |
Latest revision as of 14:24, 29 November 2014
[edit] Peer review One - Different
- Five Dimensions are explained well.
- Great :)
- Nice table of different things that fits in each category.
- ✓
- Would be nice if the listing of steps in the abstract was a list instead of just 'part of the text'.
- I see your point and i tried it at first but I don't think it looks better.
- "Used in early project planning" is not really clear - Does it mean that it was used back when Project planning was invented, or if it is the early stages of project planning.
- added stages
- The table of content seems a little extreme. Maybe it could be an idea to write the sub-sub headings with bold text, instead of a headline?
- Very good point, I saw that but didn't fix in time. Changed subsub to bold.
- The Concept of "Transportation project management" is explained. It might just be straight forward, but it could be nice to have a few sentences about it.
- added parenthesis to emphasize that this relates to construction projects and not any transportation project (e.g. public transport networks or utilizing the transport network).
- Under Traditional view it says: (usually a Department of Transportation) "Department of Transportation" if, as I understand it, is just a random department from the industry, it should not be in capital letters.
- I tried looking into this as I can't recall a strict rule but it is a national agency after all and nowhere did I ever encounter a 'DOT' written in small letters so it stays as is.
- Referencing "The Iron Triangle" without either a link or a reference. It is quite understandable, but it might be nice with a reference.
- ref added
- "One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project is one in which the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions." - Could be formulated a little clearer for example "One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions in order to live up to certain criteria." - or something like that?
- wording changed
- I do not really understand where you get this conclusion from: "Therefore a routine project can be complicated, technically, but not complex if the issues of context and financing have an insignificant magnitude. The aim of 5DPM is to allow for a better optimization of resources to ensure the success of a complex project."
- Complexity here is measured as the spread of difficulties not their depth. e.g. If you were to build a multilevel interchange on a barren 'no mans land' mountain range and had unlimited funds then the project would be complicated sure but it would not be complex.
- You are using the abbreviation PM both as Project Management, and Project Manager. I think you should stick to one of the two.
- That is intended as some things can be done both by the top person as well as the whole team.
- In the section of "Factors affecting complexity" it seems like you want to explain the factors driving complexity, but you are also giving tips on how to solve it; e.g. the list under "Project Estimates". Maybe change the title of the section, or move it to another section on how to manage the complexity?
- It's only the best standardized factors. Changed the section description and added references to the text.
- The list under "Schedule - Time" is not made with correct Wiki-syntax, but it should be easy to fix.
- ✓
- The Technical aspect seems a little short/rushed, compared to the other sections, but if you think you've depleted the knowledge, I can't see anything wrong with it.
- This is actually my chosen area of expertise and it's faaar from depleted but of course I tried to keep it as short as possible else it would become a separate article :) I see your point though so I elaborated slightly on the points.
- Under Local Issues it might be more readable if you make a few breaks in the text. for example before each point you are presenting.
- Perhaps but it's still done with a typical wiki list syntax
- It is not urgent, but the example you use to visualize the Financing part, could be used as a thorough example through the different sections, all relating to the same case. That would definitely help on the 'connecting thread'
- discussed in review 2
- Again, it is logical, but it would still be nice if you mentioned (with text!) that a low score is good, and a high score is bad.
- I agree but the scale is already described in the scoring table.
- References are not working, but I suppose you already know this.
[edit] Feedback from ProjectGoat
I hope the feedback makes sense, it should come in a pretty logical order, as it was written down as I read through the article :)
- ”Abstract text”
- Good introduction
- Write more about the relevance of your article for project management – the teachers want a summary stating the relevance of the subject/article
- Consider making the list of 5 as an actual list.
- considered :)
- Introduction
- Good, short intro text
- ✓
- Good, short intro text
- Complexity
- References to the CCPM and FWHA are missing I think
- fixed
- References to the CCPM and FWHA are missing I think
- Traditional view
- Very nice to write about this in order to give a perspective to the 5D
- Reference to where the “Iron Triangle” figure comes from – could be the same ref as the one used in the tekst.
- fixed
- Five dimensional approach
- Reference to the case study of 18 complex transportation projects could be moved to right after “a case study” to make it more clear – instead of only mentioning it after the conclusion to the study.
- good point
- re-write the sentence about the study’s conclusion to be more clear in what your want to say
- done
- I am unsure of how you get the conclusion to this paragraph, I cannot see the direct link to what has been mentioned in the paragraph and the conclusion
- Again to me it seems very logical but since both reviewers mentioned this I added an example to visualize the conclusion.
- Reference to the case study of 18 complex transportation projects could be moved to right after “a case study” to make it more clear – instead of only mentioning it after the conclusion to the study.
- Five Dimensions
- Reference to where the figure is from + refer to the figure in your text.
- When writing the last sentence “ The division of requirements…” you should refer to the table (maybe call it table 1)
- It did say 'following structure' but i added the table title to clear any doubt.
- Factors affecting complexity
- Good introduction to the factors included in complexity
- ✓
- Remember to make references to where you have these definitions from, the ideal would be to have several references, which will enhance the credibility.
- ✓
- Maybe consider changing the introduction to reflect the fact that you are not only giving definitions, but you are also giving tips in your lists
- ✓
- I think you forgot to use "Stars" to make a bulleted list in the Time paragraph
- fixed
- minor detail: When writing e.g. it should be in italic I think :)
- that's right, changed all e.g. and i.e. to italic
- The Technical paragraph is not as well described as some of the others, so consider revising this part and adding additional information here. However, I of course don’t know whether or not there in fact is more to write about this subject. It may just also be the fact, that this part has more of sub-parts.
- addressed in review 1
- Look into the possibility of maybe linking your Stakeholder part with some of the articles written about this – helps create a coherence with other aspects of project management. I think it can be done with the use of external linking :)
- added categories to the article
- In the Financing a Future Revenue Stream, it would make more sense to make the three issues as an actual numbered list.
- ✓
- I would suggest you trying to incorporate an example throughout the explanation of all the aspects
- A project where all these aspect would have to be consciously managed at all times would redefine the word nightmare :) I believe the descriptions are enough in this case.
- Good introduction to the factors included in complexity
- Radar Map
- Maybe don’t call it (tool) like this. A suggestion could be calling it: "A tool – using a Radar Map" or "Radar map – a tool for clarity and comparison"
- yes that's nicer, changed
- Very nice explanations with the use of the radar complexity diagram
- ✓
- In relation to the comment about using an example to illustrate – this example could maybe also be coupled to this Radar Map tool, if possible. This would be ideal to create a great flow in the article. By giving explanations - almost telling a story through the explained factors and then finishing by tying it together with the practical tool.
- I fully get your point but I think that a wiki article inherently should be somewhat generic. An example going through the whole article could actually make for a good case study.
- Remember to mention that on the range from 0-100, which is the best and which is the worst in order to avoid confusion later on in the Radar Chart.
- as said it is visible in the scoring table but i added this since both reviews commented on that
- Do you have a reference to where you have found this tool? And where do you have the numbers from for the mapping of the different phases?
- Maybe don’t call it (tool) like this. A suggestion could be calling it: "A tool – using a Radar Map" or "Radar map – a tool for clarity and comparison"
- added references to the figures
- General comments
- It seems that the table of content is a bit “overwhelming” and you could consider removing some of the sub-headings.
- ✓
- Are you using PM for both Project Manager and Management? This could create confusion…
- again each occurrence can be made either by a single person or the team.
- Avoid using ‘’it’s’’, ‘’don’t’’, etc….
- The reference list is made by writing <references/>
- It seems that the table of content is a bit “overwhelming” and you could consider removing some of the sub-headings.